Court rejects APP’s bid to join Electoral Act amendment suit

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday dismissed a motion by
the Action Peoples Party seeking to be joined as a defendant in the
suit filed by the Accord Party to challenge the constitutionality
of the ongoing amendment to the Electoral Act by the National
Assembly.

The Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill, 2018 seeks to provide the
order in which INEC must conduct the 2019 general elections,
contrary to the sequence earlier announced by the electoral
body.

Justice Ahmed Mohammed delivered his ruling on the APP’s motion
shortly after hearing the plaintiff and the defendants, who all
opposed the joinder application, on Tuesday.

Ruling, Justice Mohammed held that there was no basis to join
the APP as a defendant when the National Assembly, which is the
first defendant to the suit, could competently defend the suit.

Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) represented the plaintiff at the
Tuesday proceedings.

The National Assembly, the first defendant to the suit, was
represented by Mr. Joseph Daudu (SAN), while the Attorney General
of the Federation, Mr. Abubakar Malami (SAN), represented himself
as the second defendant, while Mr. Femi Falana (SAN), represented
INEC as the third defendant.

The party seeking to be joined as the fourth defendant, the APP,
was represented by its lawyer, Mr. Kingdom Okere, who argued that
the APP, being a political party, “is a necessary party in the suit
filed by the Accord Party.”

Okere argued that the Accord Party was by its suit, “seeking to
restrain the National Assembly from performing its constitutional
legislative duty of overriding the President for refusing to assent
to the bill.”

He argued that the APP like every other registered political
parties had the right to sponsor candidates in the 2019 general
elections and would be affected by the outcome of the suit.

While contending that the court lacked the power to stop the
National Assembly from carrying out its constitutional legislative
duties, it added that the elections ordering sought to be achieved
by the bill would guarantee free and fair elections.

Responding, the plaintiff’s lawyer, Olanipekun, argued that the
APP’s motion was incompetent because it failed to comply with the
provisions of Order 9(15)(2) of the Federal High Court Rules.

According to him, failure of the applicant’s lawyer to file its
client’s statement of defence and other exhibits it intended to
rely on if joined as a party was a breach of Order 9(15)(2) of the
Federal High Court Rules, and so should be dismissed.

Daudu, the National Assembly’s lawyer, also argued that the
motion by the APP was incompetent on the basis of non-compliance
with Order 9(15)(2) of the Federal High Court Rules.

He added that being a political party did not alone give the
applicant the right to be joined in the suit.

Malami, on his part argued that the application “in its own
right is inherently defective.”

He said, “The depositions contained in the affidavit in support
substantially offend the provisions of the Evidence Act.

“The affidavit is in some respect argumentative and in others
conclusive and devoid of adequate particulars of the source of
facts deposed to.”

Falana, while responding on behalf of INEC, urged the court to
strike out the affidavit filed in support of the motion for being
incompetent and subsequently dismiss the motion.

But ruling shortly after hearing all the parties, the judge
upheld the objections of the respondents to the joinder
application, but only did so on different grounds.

The judge’s decision was based solely on what he described as
the principle of joinder long settled by the Supreme Court.

He rejected the argument of the applicant that all registered
political parties were entitled to be joined as parties to the suit
since the subject matter bordered on the 2019 general
elections.

Answering the question, the judge noted that APP’s defence in
the case would not be different from that of the National Assembly,
by whose defence the case could be “completely” determined.

Dismissing the motion, Justice Mohammed said the APP might be
desirous to join a suit but that being desirous “does not qualify
it to be joined as a party.”

He then directed the National Assembly, the AGF and INEC, to
within 48 hours respond to the plaintiff’s suit and gave the
plaintiff till Friday to file further replies to the defendants if
need be.

The judge adjourned till March 26.

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday dismissed a motion by
the Action Peoples Party seeking to be joined as a defendant in the
suit filed by the Accord Party to challenge the constitutionality
of the ongoing amendment to the Electoral Act by the National
Assembly.

The Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill, 2018 seeks to provide the
order in which INEC must conduct the 2019 general elections,
contrary to the sequence earlier announced by the electoral
body.

Justice Ahmed Mohammed delivered his ruling on the APP’s motion
shortly after hearing the plaintiff and the defendants, who all
opposed the joinder application, on Tuesday.

Ruling, Justice Mohammed held that there was no basis to join
the APP as a defendant when the National Assembly, which is the
first defendant to the suit, could competently defend the suit.

Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) represented the plaintiff at the
Tuesday proceedings.

The National Assembly, the first defendant to the suit, was
represented by Mr. Joseph Daudu (SAN), while the Attorney General
of the Federation, Mr. Abubakar Malami (SAN), represented himself
as the second defendant, while Mr. Femi Falana (SAN), represented
INEC as the third defendant.

The party seeking to be joined as the fourth defendant, the APP,
was represented by its lawyer, Mr. Kingdom Okere, who argued that
the APP, being a political party, “is a necessary party in the suit
filed by the Accord Party.”

Okere argued that the Accord Party was by its suit, “seeking to
restrain the National Assembly from performing its constitutional
legislative duty of overriding the President for refusing to assent
to the bill.”

He argued that the APP like every other registered political
parties had the right to sponsor candidates in the 2019 general
elections and would be affected by the outcome of the suit.

While contending that the court lacked the power to stop the
National Assembly from carrying out its constitutional legislative
duties, it added that the elections ordering sought to be achieved
by the bill would guarantee free and fair elections.

Responding, the plaintiff’s lawyer, Olanipekun, argued that the
APP’s motion was incompetent because it failed to comply with the
provisions of Order 9(15)(2) of the Federal High Court Rules.

According to him, failure of the applicant’s lawyer to file its
client’s statement of defence and other exhibits it intended to
rely on if joined as a party was a breach of Order 9(15)(2) of the
Federal High Court Rules, and so should be dismissed.

Daudu, the National Assembly’s lawyer, also argued that the
motion by the APP was incompetent on the basis of non-compliance
with Order 9(15)(2) of the Federal High Court Rules.

He added that being a political party did not alone give the
applicant the right to be joined in the suit.

Malami, on his part argued that the application “in its own
right is inherently defective.”

He said, “The depositions contained in the affidavit in support
substantially offend the provisions of the Evidence Act.

“The affidavit is in some respect argumentative and in others
conclusive and devoid of adequate particulars of the source of
facts deposed to.”

Falana, while responding on behalf of INEC, urged the court to
strike out the affidavit filed in support of the motion for being
incompetent and subsequently dismiss the motion.

But ruling shortly after hearing all the parties, the judge
upheld the objections of the respondents to the joinder
application, but only did so on different grounds.

The judge’s decision was based solely on what he described as
the principle of joinder long settled by the Supreme Court.

He rejected the argument of the applicant that all registered
political parties were entitled to be joined as parties to the suit
since the subject matter bordered on the 2019 general
elections.

Answering the question, the judge noted that APP’s defence in
the case would not be different from that of the National Assembly,
by whose defence the case could be “completely” determined.

Dismissing the motion, Justice Mohammed said the APP might be
desirous to join a suit but that being desirous “does not qualify
it to be joined as a party.”

He then directed the National Assembly, the AGF and INEC, to
within 48 hours respond to the plaintiff’s suit and gave the
plaintiff till Friday to file further replies to the defendants if
need be.

The judge adjourned till March 26.